DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18521948 application filed November 28, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark during an interview on March 12, 2026. Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 1 recites“the plasma source comprises: a peripheral gas injection port disposed radially inward of the first sidewall, the peripheral gas injection port in fluid communication with the plasma source interior volume and having an outlet located at a first vertical position; and a center gas injection port, wherein the peripheral gas injection port disposed radially outward of a center gas injection port, and wherein the center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around the second sidewall and an outlet located at a second vertical position different than the first vertical position, the center gas injection port in fluid communications with the plasma source interior volume;” (emphasis added). Examiner fails to find support for the claimed feature “the center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around the second sidewall” (amendment filed 12/13/2024). Applicant cited paragraphs [0049] and [0064] of the as-filed specification as the supports. However, paragraph [0049] discloses“Plasma processing apparatus 200 can have a bottom edge gas injection port 290 configured to introduce the same or different gas to volume 210 as the gas injection port 270 provides to plasma source interior 230. Edge gas injection port 290 is coupled with process chamber 220 and is a top plate of the process chamber 220. Edge gas injection port 290 includes a circular plenum 292 to which gas is introduced through inlet 294. Gas flows from the plenum 292 through one or more openings 296 to the volume 210. Edge gas injection port 290 can provide fine tuning of the plasma chemistry near the edge of a substrate, and/or improve plasma uniformity at the substrate. For example, edge gas injection port 290 can provide modification of the flow (same gas), and/or modification of chemistry (chemical reaction between plasma radicals and new feed gas or different gases).” (emphasis added); and paragraph [0064] discloses “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of a plasma processing apparatus 500. Processing apparatus 500 includes plasma source 522 and processing chamber 220. Plasma source 522 includes gas injection insert 240, peripheral gas injection port 270, center gas injection port 510, and top plate 124. Center gas injection port 510 can be disposed proximate (e.g., adjacent) a wall 550. Center gas injection includes a port 510 having a generally cylindrical plenum/manifold and plurality of angled injection outlets 512 uniformly spread along the plenum. Gas injection insert 240 can likewise have a generally cylindrical shape. Center gas injection port 510 has angled outlet 512 to promote outward/sideways flow of process gas provided by center injection port 510 and angled outlets 512. Angled outlets 512 can have an angle of about 0 degree to about 90 degrees, such as about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees, such as about 45 degrees, relative to a vertical axis (such as vertical axis 186, which is parallel to an axial centerline of processing apparatus 500 and/or the axial centerline of the plasma source 522)” (emphasis added). Paragraph [0049], referring to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2, does not disclose a center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around a second sidewall. Fig. 2 shows the gas injection port 270 as an “L” shape tube. Neither paragraph [0049] nor Fig. 2 shows a center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around a second sidewall. Paragraph [0064], referring to the embodiment shown in Fig. 5, also does not disclose a center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around a second sidewall. Although paragraph [0064] discloses “Center gas injection includes a port 510 having a generally cylindrical plenum/manifold”, “cylindrical” has a different meaning than “annular”. Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the specification supports a "Center gas injection port 510 can be disposed proximate (e.g., adjacent) a wall 550. Center gas injection includes a port 510 having a generally cylindrical plenum/manifold. Gas injection insert 240 can likewise have a generally cylindrical shape" (see Office Action pg. 5-6 and 8). Applicant submits that, from this description and Figure 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the center gas injection port 510 includes a plenum annularly disposed around the second sidewall”, this argument is not persuasive. Fig. 5 is copied and shown below. It is noted that the features that are labeled 510 may be interpreted in many ways other than an annular hole. Two examples are shown in Fig. 5A and 5B below, as view from the top.
PNG
media_image1.png
765
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
447
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
493
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, the claimed feature “the center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around the second sidewall” is narrower in scope than taught in the specification. For the purpose of examining, it will be assumed that there is support for the limitation in the specification.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 14 recites“the plasma source comprises: a first sidewall and the gas injection insert define defining a plasma source interior volume, the gas injection insert comprising a peripheral gas injection port; and a center gas injection port of the plasma source is proximate to a second sidewall and comprising an annular plenum surrounding the second sidewall” (emphasis added). Examiner fails to find support for the feature “a center gas injection port of the plasma source is proximate to a second sidewall and comprising an annular plenum surrounding the second sidewall”. Applicant cited paragraphs [0049] and [0064] of the as-filed specification as the supports. However, paragraph [0049] discloses“Plasma processing apparatus 200 can have a bottom edge gas injection port 290 configured to introduce the same or different gas to volume 210 as the gas injection port 270 provides to plasma source interior 230. Edge gas injection port 290 is coupled with process chamber 220 and is a top plate of the process chamber 220. Edge gas injection port 290 includes a circular plenum 292 to which gas is introduced through inlet 294. Gas flows from the plenum 292 through one or more openings 296 to the volume 210. Edge gas injection port 290 can provide fine tuning of the plasma chemistry near the edge of a substrate, and/or improve plasma uniformity at the substrate. For example, edge gas injection port 290 can provide modification of the flow (same gas), and/or modification of chemistry (chemical reaction between plasma radicals and new feed gas or different gases).” (emphasis added); and paragraph [0064] discloses “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram of a plasma processing apparatus 500. Processing apparatus 500 includes plasma source 522 and processing chamber 220. Plasma source 522 includes gas injection insert 240, peripheral gas injection port 270, center gas injection port 510, and top plate 124. Center gas injection port 510 can be disposed proximate (e.g., adjacent) a wall 550. Center gas injection includes a port 510 having a generally cylindrical plenum/manifold and plurality of angled injection outlets 512 uniformly spread along the plenum. Gas injection insert 240 can likewise have a generally cylindrical shape. Center gas injection port 510 has angled outlet 512 to promote outward/sideways flow of process gas provided by center injection port 510 and angled outlets 512. Angled outlets 512 can have an angle of about 0 degree to about 90 degrees, such as about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees, such as about 45 degrees, relative to a vertical axis (such as vertical axis 186, which is parallel to an axial centerline of processing apparatus 500 and/or the axial centerline of the plasma source 522)” (emphasis added). Paragraph [0049], referring to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2, does not disclose a center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around a second sidewall. Fig. 2 shows the gas injection port 270 as an “L” shape tube. Neither paragraph [0049] nor Fig. 2 shows a center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around a second sidewall. Paragraph [0064], referring to the embodiment shown in Fig. 5, also does not disclose a center gas injection port comprises a plenum annularly disposed around a second sidewall. Although paragraph [0064] discloses “Center gas injection includes a port 510 having a generally cylindrical plenum/manifold”, “cylindrical” has a different meaning than “annular”. Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the specification supports a "Center gas injection port 510 can be disposed proximate (e.g., adjacent) a wall 550. Center gas injection includes a port 510 having a generally cylindrical plenum/manifold. Gas injection insert 240 can likewise have a generally cylindrical shape" (see Office Action pg. 5-6 and 8). Applicant submits that, from this description and Figure 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the center gas injection port 510 includes a plenum annularly disposed around the second sidewall”, this argument is not persuasive. Fig. 5 is copied and shown above. It is noted that the features that are labeled 510 may be interpreted in many ways other than an annular hole. Two examples are shown in Fig. 5A and 5B above. Thus, the claimed feature “a center gas injection port of the plasma source is proximate to a second sidewall and comprising an annular plenum surrounding the second sidewall” is narrower in scope than taught in the specification. For the purpose of examining, it will be assumed that there is support for the limitation in the specification.
Claims 2-13 and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1 or 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-8, 11 and 14-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180358204), hereinafter “Ma’204”, in view of Xie et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200373129), hereinafter “Xie”, and Peuse et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20100151694), hereinafter “Peuse”:--Claims 1, 14: Ma’204 teaches a method of treating a substrate comprisingi) loading a substrate 114 on a pedestal 112 in an apparatus comprising ([0031-0044])- a process chamber 110, and a plasma chamber 120 above and in fluid communication with the process chamber 110 (Fig. 1), wherein the plasma chamber has a gas injection insert 140 within the plasma chamber (Fig. 1, 5) and a first sidewall 122 (Fig. 1, 5);- the gas injection insert 140 within the plasma chamber (Fig. 1, 5), having has a cylindrical shape and a second sidewall, and is positioned radially inward from the first sidewall (Fig. 1, 5), wherein the first sidewall 122 and the second sidewall defines an annular channel (Fig. 1, 5), and wherein the gas injection insert 140 comprises a center gas injection port 154 in fluid communication with the annular channel (Fig. 5);- an induction coil 130 adjacent to and around the plasma chamber, the induction coil 130 is disposed radially outward of and around the first sidewall 122;- a grid 116 separating the process chamber 110 and the plasma chamber 120;- a gas manifold 155 supplying process gases, such as nitrogen ([0042]), to the gas injection ports 154, 152 and 162 in various embodiments (Fig. 2-8)- a gas injection aperture 164 at the grid 116 to supply process gases in a desired direction to the process chamber ([0045, 0049])ii) supplying an RF power to the induction coil 130 to generate a plasma ([0034]), that flows through the grid 116 to treat a front side of the substrate in the process chamber (abstract). It is noted that the process gases flow through the peripheral gas injection port 154 to the gas channel, and that the gas injection port is adjacent and coupled with the sidewall of the plasma chamber (Fig. 1). Ma’204 further teaches that a gas injection aperture 164 is positioned at an edge portion of the grid 116 ([0042]) to supply process gases in a desired direction to the process chamber ([0045, 0049-0050]) , and that “more zones with gas injection at different flat surfaces inside the plasma chamber can be provided without deviating from the scope of the present disclosure, such as three zones, four zones, five zones, six zones, etc” ([0020]) Ma’204 further teaches that the apparatus includes “a plasma chamber where plasma is generated and a separate processing chamber where the substrate is processed. The processing chamber can be “downstream” of the plasma chamber such that there is no direct exposure of the substrate to the plasma. A separation grid can be used to separate the processing chamber from the plasma chamber. The separation grid can be transparent to neutral species but not transparent to charged particles from the plasma. The separation grid can include a sheet of material with holes” ([0003]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to position the gas injection aperture 164 at an edge portion and above the grid plates in the grid 116 (Fig. 8) to generate the plasma in the invention of Ma’204 because Ma’204 teaches that this would improve process uniformity ([0018-0019]). Ma’204 further teaches that the gas injection ports 164 may be arranged at desired positions and directed in a desired direction to achieve a desired etching, and that “(t)he gas injection zones are illustrated as injecting gas in a vertical direction for purposes of illustration and discussion. Those of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the gas injection zones can inject gas in any direction. For instance, the gas injection zones can inject gas in a vertical, horizontal, or oblique directions” ([0048-0050], Fig. 7-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to orient the gas injection ports 164 perpendicular to the sidewall, as shown in Fig. 8, in the invention of Ma’204. Ma’204 further teaches that the apparatus further comprise a heat source to heat the pedestal ([0059]), but fails to teach heating the substrate using a plurality of lamps.
Peuse, also directed to processing a substrate in a chamber having a gas injection insert (Fig. 1, 2), teaches that the pedestal may be heated to 600°C or 1200°C during processing, and that the heating may be performed by heating from the backside by a set of lamps ([0031, 0033-0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a set of lamps to heat the substrate from the backside in the invention of Ma’204 because Peuse teaches that this would be an effective way to heat the substrate to a desired process temperature. Ma’204 further teaches the plasma chamber comprises a gas injection insert defining a gas channel between the gas injection insert and a first sidewall of the plasma chamber (Fig. 1), and wherein the gas injection insert comprises a peripheral gas injection port 164 at a first vertical position and a center injection port 154 at a second vertical position. Fig. 5 is copied and shown below for reference. It is noted that the peripheral gas injection port 164 may be position radially inward of the first sidewall as explained below.
PNG
media_image4.png
767
763
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ma’204 further teaches that the gas port 154 to comprise a plenum 151 that distributes gas on both side of the gas injection insert (Fig. 1), but fails to teach that the plenum 151 comprises an annular plenum. It is noted that each of Fig. 1-6 show a radial cross section of the gas insert, and one of skills in the art would interpret this as the cross section is the same in all radial directions. Xie, also directed to a similar gas injection plenum in a process chamber, teaches that the gas plenum 151 is an annular gas distribution channel ([0044], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the plenum 151 as an annular gas distribution channel in the invention of Ma’204 because Ma’204 discloses a cross section of the gas injection insert showing the plenum 151 distributes gas on both side of the gas injection insert, but is silent about the 3-D shape of the plenum 151, and Xie teaches that such annular gas distribution channel would be effective. In another embodiment, Ma’204 further teaches that the gas port 152 may comprise multiple gas injection opening (Fig. 4, [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to also form the gas port 152 to comprise an annular gas distribution channel for the same reason stated above. Ma’204 further teaches that the gas injection ports 164 and 162 may be arranged at desired positions and directed in a desired direction to achieve a desired etching ([0048-0050], Fig. 7-8). Paragraph [0048] discloses “(t)he gas injection zones are illustrated as injecting gas in a vertical direction for purposes of illustration and discussion. Those of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the gas injection zones can inject gas in any direction. For instance, the gas injection zones can inject gas in a vertical, horizontal, or oblique directions”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to place the gas injection ports 164 at a position radially inward of the first sidewall, as shown in Fig. 7 and 8. It is noted that the gas injection ports 164 may be in fluid communication with the plasma chamber through the holes in the grid 116 (Fig. 7-8). For reference, Fig. 8 of Ma’204 is copied and shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
380
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Alternately, the plasma chamber is defined as the combination of the combination of the chamber 122 and the separation grid 116 and the top grid plate of the separation grid, and the process chamber is defined as the chamber 110 shown in Fig. 1 including the bottom grid shown in Fig. 8. This reads on the limitations “a peripheral gas injection port disposed radially inward of the first sidewall, the peripheral gas injection port in fluid communication with the plasma source interior volume and having an outlet located at a first vertical position; and a center gas injection port, wherein the peripheral gas injection port disposed radially outward of a center gas injection port” recited in claim 1. Alternately, Xie teaches that the peripheral gas injection port 164 may be position above a separation grid 235 (Fig. 6, [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to place the gas injection ports 164 at a position radially inward of the first sidewall and above the separation grid, as taught by Xie, in the invention of Ma’204. This reads on the limitations “a peripheral gas injection port disposed radially inward of the first sidewall, the peripheral gas injection port in fluid communication with the plasma source interior volume and having an outlet located at a first vertical position; and a center gas injection port, wherein the peripheral gas injection port disposed radially outward of a center gas injection port” recited in claim 1.
--Claims 5, 17, 18: Peuse further teaches that the substrate may comprise a Ti/TiN/WN stack, and method may comprise treating a silicon layer in a presence of a tungsten layer ([0041]), wherein increasing the hydrogen concentration in the gas would reduce the oxidation rate on tungsten layer with respect on the silicon layer ([0045-0047]). Although Peuse is silent about the treatment decreases oxygen content to 40 atomic percent or less, since the silicon layer, the tungsten layer, and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claims 6, 7: It is noted that during the oxidation of the silicon layer, the silicon layer that is formed is also exposed to the plasma comprising oxygen and hydrogen. Although Peuse is silent about contacting the oxygen and hydrogen radicals with the silicon oxide layer during heating reduces oxygen-hydrogen bonding, silicon-hydrogen bonding, and nitrogen-hydrogen bonding in the silicon oxide layer compared to the silicon oxide layer before processing, since the silicon oxide layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 15: Although Peuse is silent about contacting the nitrogen or NH radicals with the layer of silicon oxide during heating increases nitrogen content of the silicon oxide layer at approximately the same level of nitrogen conformality, since the silicon oxide layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 16: Although Peuse is silent about contacting the nitrogen radicals with the layer silicon during heating forms a conformal layer of silicon nitride, since the silicon layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 8: Peuse further teaches that the process gas may include helium gas ([0027]). Although Peuse is silent about contacting the helium radicals with the silicon oxide layer during heating improves film quality of the silicon oxide layer compared to the silicon oxide layer before processing, since the silicon oxide layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.--Claim 11: Peuse further teaches that the process gases including hydrogen, nitrogen, helium, ammonia and/or oxygen ([0035]), and the substrate includes a silicon nitride layer ([0059]). Although Peuse is silent about contacting the hydrogen, nitrogen, or NH radicals with the silicon nitride layer during heating reduces impurity content of oxygen, hydrogen, and chlorine in the silicon nitride layer similar to rapid thermal processing anneal, since the silicon nitride layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claims 2-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma’204 in view of Xie and Peuse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210082768), hereinafter “Wu”:--Claims 2, 3: Ma’204 modified by Xie and Peuse teaches the invention as above. Peuse further teaches that the method may comprise treating a tungsten nitride layer ([0041]) by using a gas mixture comprising 60-95% hydrogen ([0045]), but fail to teach treating a tungsten carbonitride layer. Wu teaches that, during fabrication of a semiconductor device, a WCN work function layer may be annealed by using a plasma generated from hydrogen gas to increase the density of the work function layer, reduce grain size in the work function layer, reduce the concentration of carbon in the work function layer, and increase the concentrations of nitrogen and tungsten in the work function layer ([0011, 0078-0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to treat a WCN layer by using a plasma comprising hydrogen in the invention of Ma’204 modified by Xie and Peuse because Peuse teaches that the method may comprise treating a tungsten nitride layer by using a gas mixture comprising hydrogen, and Wu teaches that treating a WCN layer by using a plasma generated from hydrogen gas is routinely performed in the art to increase the density of the work function layer, reduce grain size in the work function layer, reduce the concentration of carbon in the work function layer, and increase the concentrations of nitrogen and tungsten in the work function layer. Although Wu is silent about the treatment decreases carbon content in the tungsten carbonitride layer by about 3-fold to about 6-fold without reducing nitrogen content in the tungsten carbonitride layer, since the WCN layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claims 4 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma’204 in view of Xie and Peuse as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20210287900), hereinafter “Yang”:--Claim 4: Ma’204 modified by Xie and Peuse teaches the invention as above. Peuse further teaches that the method may comprise treating a metal nitride, such as a titanium nitride layer ([0039]) by using a gas mixture comprising steam co-injected with hydrogen gas ([0048]), but fail to teach treating a TiN layer by using a sequence recited in claim 4. Yang teaches that, during fabrication of a semiconductor device, a metal nitride ([0022]), such as a TiN layer ([0030]) may be annealed by using a plasma sequence comprising oxygen, then hydrogen, then nitrogen to eliminate a seam in a trench (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to treat a TiN layer by using a plasma sequence comprising oxygen, then hydrogen, then nitrogen in the invention of Ma’204 modified by Xie and Peuse because Peuse further teaches that the method may comprise treating a titanium nitride layer by using a gas mixture comprising steam co-injected with hydrogen gas, and Wu teaches that treating a TiN layer by using a plasma generated from such sequence may be performed to eliminate a seam that would cause structure failure ([0002]).--Claim 12: Since Si is considered to be a metal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to treat a SiN layer by using the plasma sequence to eliminate a seam.
Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma’204 in view of Xie, Peuse and Wu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Siew et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20170033006), hereinafter “Siew”:--Claim 10: Ma’204 modified by Xie, Peuse and Wu teaches the invention as above. Ma’204, Peuse and Wu are silent about a method of forming the WCN layer. Siew teaches that a WCN layer may be formed by using ALD or CVD method ([0010-0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the WCN layer in the invention of Ma’204 modified by Xie, Peuse and Wu by using an ALD or CVD method because Ma’204, Peuse and Wu are silent about a method of forming the WCN layer, and Siew teaches that a WCN layer may be efficiently formed by using ALD or CVD.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma’204 in view of Xie, Peuse and Wu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220341039), hereinafter “Liu”:--Claim 10: Ma’204 modified by Xie, Peuse and Wu teaches the invention as above. Ma’204, Xie, Peuse and Wu are silent about a method of forming the WCN layer. Liu teaches that a WCN layer may be formed by using ALD ([0010-0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the WCN layer in the invention of Ma’204 modified by Xie, Peuse and Wu by using an ALD method because Ma’204, Xie, Peuse and Wu are silent about a method of forming the WCN layer, and Liu teaches that a WCN layer may be efficiently formed by using ALD.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma’204 in view of Xie, Peuse and Wu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Al-Bayati et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20050136604), hereinafter “Roche”:--Claim 13: Ma’204 modified by Xie, Peuse and Wu teaches the invention as above. Ma’204, Xie, Peuse and Wu fail to teach that the gas flows comprising PH3, BF3, AsH3, or Ga. Al-Bayati, also directed to treat a substrate by using a plasma from a remote chamber, wherein the plasma is generated by an inductive coil 165 and flow through a grid 210 ([0150, 0223], Fig. 2), and wherein the plasma may comprise a dopant such as BF3 or PH3 ([0274, 0295, 0323, 0330]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use the apparatus disclosed by Ma’204 modified by Xie, Peuse and Wu to dope a substrate in the invention of Al-Bayati because Al-Bayati teaches that it would be effective.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ma’204 in view of Ma et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180358206), hereinafter “Ma’206”, Xie and Peuse: --Claim 19: Ma’204 teaches a method of treating a substrate comprisingi) loading a substrate 114 on a pedestal 112 in an apparatus comprising ([0031-0044])- a process chamber 110, and a plasma chamber 120 above and in fluid communication with the process chamber 110 (Fig. 1), wherein the plasma chamber has a gas injection insert 140 within the plasma chamber (Fig. 1, 5) and a first sidewall 122 (Fig. 1, 5);- the gas injection insert 140 within the plasma chamber (Fig. 1, 5), having has a cylindrical shape and a second sidewall, and is positioned radially inward from the first sidewall (Fig. 1, 5), wherein the first sidewall 122 and the second sidewall defines an annular channel (Fig. 1, 5), and wherein the gas injection insert 140 comprises a center gas injection port 154 in fluid communication with the annular channel (Fig. 5);- an induction coil 130 adjacent to and around the plasma chamber, the induction coil 130 is disposed radially outward of and around the first sidewall 122;- a grid 116 separating the process chamber 110 and the plasma chamber 120;- a gas manifold 155 supplying process gases, such as nitrogen ([0042]), to the gas injection ports 154, 152 and 162 in various embodiments (Fig. 2-8)- a gas injection aperture 164 at the grid 116 to supply process gases in a desired direction to the process chamber ([0045, 0049])ii) supplying an RF power to the induction coil 130 to generate a plasma ([0034]), that flows through the grid 116 to treat a front side of the substrate in the process chamber (abstract). It is noted that the process gases flow through the peripheral gas injection port 154 to the gas channel, and that the gas injection port is adjacent and coupled with the sidewall of the plasma chamber (Fig. 1). Ma’204 further teaches that a gas injection aperture 164 is positioned at an edge portion of the grid 116 ([0042]) to supply process gases in a desired direction to the process chamber ([0045, 0049-0050]) , and that “more zones with gas injection at different flat surfaces inside the plasma chamber can be provided without deviating from the scope of the present disclosure, such as three zones, four zones, five zones, six zones, etc” ([0020]) Ma’204 further teaches that the apparatus includes “a plasma chamber where plasma is generated and a separate processing chamber where the substrate is processed. The processing chamber can be “downstream” of the plasma chamber such that there is no direct exposure of the substrate to the plasma. A separation grid can be used to separate the processing chamber from the plasma chamber. The separation grid can be transparent to neutral species but not transparent to charged particles from the plasma. The separation grid can include a sheet of material with holes” ([0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to position the gas injection aperture 164 at an edge portion and above the grid plates in the grid 116 (Fig. 8) to generate the plasma in the invention of Ma’204 because Ma’204 teaches that this would improve process uniformity ([0018-0019]). Ma’204 further teaches that the gas injection ports 164 may be arranged at desired positions and directed in a desired direction to achieve a desired etching, and that “(t)he gas injection zones are illustrated as injecting gas in a vertical direction for purposes of illustration and discussion. Those of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the gas injection zones can inject gas in any direction. For instance, the gas injection zones can inject gas in a vertical, horizontal, or oblique directions” ([0048-0050], Fig. 7-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to orient the gas injection ports 164 perpendicular to the sidewall, as shown in Fig. 8, in the invention of Ma’204. Ma’204 fails to teaches the claimed feature that the apparatus has a first and second induction coil. Ma’206, also directed to a apparatus having a plasma chamber and a process chamber that are separated by a grid, teaches that the plasma chamber advantageously has multiple induction coils, including a first induction coil positioned at a first vertical position adjacent the vertical surface of the sidewall of the plasma chamber, and a second induction coil positioned at a second vertical position adjacent the vertical surface of the sidewall of the plasma chamber, wherein the first induction coil can be coupled to a first radio frequency power generator and the second induction coil can be coupled to a second radio frequency power generator ([0021, 0025, 0027, 0042, 0044], Fig. 2-4), in order to facilitate tuning of the inductive plasma at various locations along the vertical direction, resulting in a more uniform process ([0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to include a second induction coil, as taught by Ma’206 above, in the invention of Ma’204 because Ma’206 teaches that this would improve process uniformity. Ma’204 further teaches that the apparatus further comprise a heat source to heat the pedestal ([0059]), but fails to teach heating the substrate using a plurality of lamps. Peuse, also directed to processing a substrate in a chamber having a gas injection insert (Fig. 1, 2), teaches that the pedestal may be heated to 600°C or 1200°C during processing, and that the heating may be performed by heating from the backside by a set of lamps ([0031, 0033-0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a set of lamps to heat the substrate from the backside in the invention of Ma’204 because Peuse teaches that this would be an effective way to heat the substrate to a desired process temperature. Ma’204 further teaches that the gas port 164 distributes gas on both side of the grid 116 (Fig. 5), but fails to teach that gas port 164 comprises a circular plenum. It is noted that each of Fig. 1-6 show a radial cross section of the gas insert, and one of skills in the art would interpret this as the cross section is the same in all radial directions. Xie, also directed to a similar gas injection plenum in a process chamber, teaches that the gas plenum 151 is an annular gas distribution channel ([0044], Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the gas port 164 comprising an annular gas distribution channel in the invention of Ma’204 because Ma’204 discloses a cross section of grid 116 comprising the gas port 164 distributes gas on both side of the gas injection insert, but is silent about the 3-D shape of the gas port 164, and Xie teaches that such annular gas distribution channel would be effective. In another embodiment, Ma’204 further teaches that the gas port 152 and 154 may comprise multiple gas injection opening (Fig. 4, [0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to also form the gas port 152 and 154 comprising an annular gas distribution channel for the same reason stated above. Alternately, the plasma chamber is defined as the combination of the combination of the chamber 122 and the separation grid 116 and the top grid plate of the separation grid, and the process chamber is defined as the chamber 110 shown in Fig. 1 including the bottom grid shown in Fig. 8. Alternately, Xie teaches that the peripheral gas injection port 164 may be position above a separation grid 235 (Fig. 6, [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to place the gas injection ports 164 at a position radially inward of the first sidewall and above the separation grid, as taught by Xie in Fig. 5, in the invention of Ma’204. Xie teaches that the process gases may comprise hydrogen ([0080], Claim 3). Peuse teaches that the process gas may comprise hydrogen ([0048, 0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to include hydrogen, in the process gas in the invention of Ma’204 modified by Xie and Peuse because Xie and Peuse teach that it may be effective.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Blakency et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20220298624), hereinafter “Blakeney”, in view of Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse:--Claim 20: Blakency teaches a method comprising forming a W layer, then plasma treating the W layer by using a plasma comprising hydrogen ([0009, 0061]). Blakency further teaches that the treatment may be performed in a plasma chamber (Fig. 7). Ma’206 modified by Ma’204, Xie and Peuse teaches a plasma apparatus for treating a substrate as described above, wherein the plasma is advantageously formed remotely to reduce plasma damage to the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the plasma treatment in the invention of Blakency by using the plasma apparatus taught by Ma’206 modified by Ma’204, Xie and Peuse because this would reduce plasma damage to the substrate. Although Blakency, Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse are silent about contacting the hydrogen radicals with the layer of tungsten during heating reduces interfacial fluorine content of the tungsten layer by about 2-fold to about 20-fold, since the W layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tapily (U.S. PGPub. No. 20200035481), hereinafter “Tapily”, in view of Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse:--Claim 20: Tapily teaches a method comprising forming a TiN layer, then plasma treating the TiN layer by using a plasma comprising hydrogen ([0048]). Blakency further teaches that the treatment may be performed in a chamber having a remote plasma source (Fig. 4). Ma’206 modified by Ma’204, Xie and Peuse teaches a plasma apparatus for treating a substrate as described above, wherein the plasma is advantageously formed remotely to reduce plasma damage to the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the plasma treatment in the invention of Tapily by using the plasma apparatus taught by Ma’206 modified by Ma’204, Xie and Peuse as an equivalent substitution for the chamber having a remote plasma source . Although Tapily, Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse are silent about contacting the hydrogen radicals with the titanium nitride layer during heating reduces impurity content of oxygen, chlorine, and carbon in the titanium nitride layer greater than thermal only treatment, since the TiN layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Briggs et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20180330986), hereinafter “Briggs”, in view of Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse:--Claim 20: Briggs teaches a method comprising forming a Ru layer, then plasma treating the Ru layer by using a plasma comprising hydrogen ([0100]). Briggs is silent about an apparatus that is used to perform the plasma treating. Ma’206 modified by Ma’204, Xie and Peuse teaches a plasma apparatus for treating a substrate as described above, wherein the plasma is advantageously formed remotely to reduce plasma damage to the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the plasma treatment in the invention of Tapily by using the plasma apparatus taught by Ma’026 modified by Peuse because this would reduce plasma damage to the substrate. Although Briggs, Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse are silent about contacting the hydrogen radicals with the ruthenium layer during heating improves ruthenium gap fill relative to hydrogen anneal without hydrogen radicals, since the Ru layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Claim 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Douglas et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20140216498), hereinafter “Douglas”, in view of Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse:--Claim 20: Douglas teaches a method comprising forming a boron-carbon layer, then plasma treating the boron-carbon layer by using a plasma comprising hydrogen ([0033, 0039]). Douglas is silent about an apparatus that is used to perform the plasma treating. Ma’206 modified by Ma’204, Xie and Peuse teaches a plasma apparatus for treating a substrate as described above, wherein the plasma is advantageously formed remotely to reduce plasma damage to the substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to perform the plasma treatment in the invention of Douglas by using the plasma apparatus taught by Ma’206 modified by Ma’204, Xie and Peuse because this would reduce plasma damage to the substrate. Although Douglas, Ma’206, Ma’204, Xie and Peuse are silent about contacting the hydrogen radicals with the boron-doped carbon layer during heating reduces hydrogen content of the boron-doped carbon layer thereby increasing Young’s modulus and density of the boron-doped carbon layer, since the Ru layer and the plasma treating are the same as taught by Applicant, such effects must occur, as taught by Applicant, since, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that “the specification supports a "Center gas injection port 510 can be disposed proximate (e.g., adjacent) a wall 550. Center gas injection includes a port 510 having a generally cylindrical plenum/manifold. Gas injection insert 240 can likewise have a generally cylindrical shape" (see Office Action pg. 5-6 and 8). Applicant submits that, from this description and Figure 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the center gas injection port 510 includes a plenum annularly disposed around the second sidewall”, this argument is not persuasive. Fig. 5 is copied and shown below. It is noted that the features that are labeled 510 may be interpreted in many ways other than an annular hole. Two examples are shown in Fig. 5A and 5B below, as view from the top.
PNG
media_image1.png
765
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
447
483
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
493
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the claimed feature is narrower in scope that disclosed in the specification.-- Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ma’204 does not disclose the feature “a peripheral gas injection port disposed radially inward of the first sidewall” and “the peripheral gas injection port disposed radially outward of a center gas injection port”, this argument is not persuasive, as explained above. -- Regarding Applicant’s argument that Ma’204 does not disclose the feature “the edge gas injection port is disposed between the plasma source and the separation grid”, this argument is not persuasive, as explained above.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached on (571) 272-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights